Obama's Internationalism: Echoes of FDR, HST and JFK

President Obama gave a speech last week in Moscow that conjures up memories of our greatest foreign policy presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy. Two lines from Obama's address directly echo the themes and concerns of these three 20th century Democratic leaders.

First Obama stated: "Any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game -- progress must be shared."

And then he said: ""Now let me be clear: America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor should we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country."

His remarks are eerily reminiscent of two powerful speeches which President Franklin Roosevelt and his successor, President Harry Truman, delivered within four months of each other in 1945.

FDR said in March 1945: "We shall have to take responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict."

And Truman's remarks in June 1945: "We all have to recognize -- no matter how great our strength -- that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please. No one nation, no regional group, can, or should expect, any special privilege which harms any other nation. If any nation would keep security for itself, it must be ready and willing to share security with all. That is the price which each nation will have to pay for world peace."

Finally there are John Kennedy's comments in his talk at the University of Washington on November 16, 1961: "In short, we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient -- that we are only six percent of the world's population -- that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind -- that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity -- and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."

Obama's words represent a continuation of this historic tradition of internationalism in the Democratic Party that has helped build America into the most powerful land on earth. The Obama presidency gives hope for a return to such realistic multilateral diplomacy of yore in the coming years.

Comments

[Mike1960]

It's too bad President Obama doesn't follow his own advice--or maybe he got his Russian speech from his teleprompter? He is in fact meddling in the Honduran goverments INTERNAL affairs. By their own constitutional law, the president was LEGALLY removed and sent packing. If he is not going to support a country that follows its constitution--why on earth does he not blast Iran for their election problems? You can't have it both ways and expect anyone to take you seriously. Whatever integrity he may or may not have is not helped by sending mixed signals on this very issue to Iran and then Honduras in a very short period of time. Stick to your teleprompter and leave the tough foreign policy business to the experts--like Hillary. haha

[themodernleader]

Perrydf. Your view of history of the Trruman and Kennedy Administrations do not mesh well with what actually happened. In 1848 George C. Marshall was sent to China to try to save a losing Chiang Chischeck (sp) regime who's American supported army was being mutiliated by Mao's fanatically regimented military. He had no success in trying to reach a truce or peace. China did not fall. It was taken over by unemployed and useless intellectuals of the defunct civil service when Chinese policies were written in the Chinese vernacular rather than the esoteric language of the ruling class beginning in about 1915. The great american educator, John Dewey, made that recommendation to a visiting Chinese student who took it back to Sun Yat Sen who adopted it. Many peasants were attracted to Maoism on the promise of elliminating corruption and inequality of classes and groups. Truman was helpless to influence the outcome.
Truman assisted the withdrawal of Changchisheck's army to Tiawan where a traditional organization became modern industrial powerhouse within a few generations, an amazing feat. Their success may have been attributed to American aid in the form of unlimited opportunity for all its citizens to manufacture and export. HST and our Congress should be given accolades for that strategy and accomplishment.

[steamboat]

Stephen, there was no "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" (Reagan). Or "I'm am a Berliner" (JFK). Or "Marshall Plan" (HST). Or "Going to China" (Nixon)........So why do you think this? Was Georgia mentioned when he was in Moscow? Here's another one. Everybody on this blog and people like George Clooney cried about Darfur for the last 3 years. Very interesting since they didn't say a word when Clinton was president. And guess what, it appears nobody is saying anything about Darfur now. Why?

[themodernleader]

Scott1982: Thoughtful conclusions on your part. However, I think FDR, HST and JFK would have all agreed that a safer world is a world of growing and achieving people who are blessed with the opportunities that democracy provided the American people until the last generations.
FDR was confronted with the spread of totalitarian movements. We were fortunate that Communism was seen as a threat to fascism. Therefore, Herr Hitler double-crossed Stalin and went to the task of conquering Russia. Roosevelt had no other choice then support Russia to stop a scourge that could have brought on a new dark age. Roosevelt's Atlantic Charter for the peaceful future was a bill of rights with opportunity for traditional people of the world. Truman followed through on that doctrine (program).
Truman fought a limited war with Communism in Korea. Otherwise, he was very circumspect in avoiding major war with a nuclear armed Soviet Union or with China. On the other hand, JFK and Johnson, followed by Bush the Younger and Obama find us bogged down in unjustified and unwinnable wars.
Historian Schlesinger furnishes a superfical and incredulous connection between the earlier presidents and our present President who's words out-reach his judgement, in my biased opinion.

[HST]

He left out Reagan cause wasn't talking about presidents who traded arms for hostages or illegally funneled arms to south American terrorists.

[Perrydf]

You premise does not match the historical record. FDR, HST and JFK did not have similar internationalist stands. FDR was against colonialism and wanted a balance of powers between the Big Four (the USA, GB (without the Commonwealth), the USSR, and Chiang’s Chinese Republic). HST reversed all of this and helped GB expand its Commonwealth, launched the Cold War against the USSR and helped install Mao in China forcing Chiang to flee to Taiwan. JFK continued Eisenhower’s rational cooling off of the Cold War. Just because all three were in the Democratic Party does not mean they had similar policies. You cannot judge a President, including Obama, on rhetoric by policies.

[Perrydf]

This column is nonsense and ahistorical. FDR, HST and JFK did not have similar international stands. FDR was against colonialism and proposed a balance between the Big Four (USA/USSR/GB and the Chinese Republic. HST came in an immediately went in the other direction and supported colonialism and helped put Mao in charge in China and forced the Chinese Republic to flee to Taiwan and launched the Cold War against our war-time ally the USSR. JFK continued Eisenhower's rational drawing down of the Cold War without actually coming to terms with the USSR or communist China. Just because they were all "Democrats" doesn't mean they were in any way similar, internationally or domestically. A President's rhetoric does not always match their policies. Listening to Obama's rhetoric will tell us very little about his policies. Get real.

[hippieforlife]

Funny, I don't remember hearing or reading where any of the three presidents named ever apologized for the USA.

How could you have left out Reagan? Was it deliberate?

[HST]

He left out Reagan becuase he wasn't including presidents who traded arms for hostages or illegally funneled money to south American criminals.

[Mike1960]

Yep, Reagan was so bad that the freedom of all eastern European countries was gained thanks to his policies against the Russian Bear. Good thing the Berlin Wall was not still standing today; otherwise Obama would have gone there and apologized for Russia having to build it because of our evil policies of the Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations. I guess it's better for our current president to suck up to 'south American criminals' like Chavez, Ortega, and so forth. Not to mention his damning of the purely internal and constitutionally correct removing of the Honduran president. This Obama is certainly a great guy isn't he? The laughing stock of the foreign world, and the emptiest suit that has ever sat in the oval office. HST--why don't you and Sean Penn go hang out and solve all the world's problems.

[David Campbell]

His world policy is fine and a relief from that of Bush but he has an old problem and I hope he recognizes it. I'll call it the LBJ Syndrome. It begins its infection when the generals request "more troops." Remember Vietnam? Same old, same old, just give us more troops and we'will win. NO, WE WILL NOT WIN because it is not possible to win. Afganistan is and always has been unwinable. Quoting Gandhi to the British, "It is time you left." To President Obama, it is past time for us to leave and let Afghanistan do whatever it wants. The Taliban are not a threat to us. We have crazies here as everywhere in the world. When a group becomes a direct threat then go after that group. Generals always want more troops and you must just say no, in order to not fall into Johnson's disaster. We do not want that to happen. NO,NO,NO! GOT IT?
(I am not a fan of me but perhaps of Charles Darwin)

[noneIn2008]

You forgot to add the international policies of LBJ: Four U.S. Marines and eight British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in recent days, stoking concern as thousands of new U.S. troops pour into the country.

[Dennis60]

""Now let me be clear: America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor should we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country."

So I understand what the President is saying. We have no business at all "meddeling in DARFUR. The next time the Hutu's decide to go on a machete march, we will close out eyes. Obama has words, words, and more words. Those words seem more like a man with no conviction.

[Maruanayam]

Darfur wasn't ran by anyone and Hutu's going on a machete march means genocide which means the President is obliged to intervene....His words words words are restoring the destroyed image of the US in the world a bit

[ez14livin]

lucky for you that freedom of speech doesn't include a clause about rational coherence

[johnsonc20]

Ah, if only these grand pronouncements actually led to policies that practiced what our leaders have expressed. Obama is following in that grand tradition as well, "do as I say, not as I do." But, to give new President some credit, he is not following the blind elephant policies of his predecessor - it is a kinder, gentler, smarter imperialism that Mr. Obama aspires to.

[aramos]

I guess if you keep trying to compare Obama to iconic Presidents some people might believe he is one.

[LeftCoastLarry]

Oh he is alright. Denial is your strong suit?

[springer23]

Fantasy must be your strong suit...What has he accomplished? His stimulus is an epic failure..He promised 3 million jobs and so far he's lost well over 2 million since his stimulus bill was passed...Now he is claiming they didn't have complete information well duh..newsflash 99% of your most important decisions will have to be made with incomplete information that in a nutshell is your job...how naive.....I don't even want to start with foreign policy another display of ineptitude

[juggernaut1729]

Thank God, Obama is not following the foreign policy of FDR.

FDR goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and dragged the US into what until then was a Eurasian war. FDR was a warmonger.

[themodernleader]

Dr. Schlesinger assures us the the great Democratic Party is back on track with the sagacious, prudent President Obama. He connects FDR, Truman and Kennedy and their foreign policy statements in a period when the United States was the strongest economic, technological and innovating country in the world. Its military was unsurpassed. We are in a different set of conditions.
Obama is speaking from a position of a broken financial system, bankruptcy at every level, a virtually destroyed manufacturing and technological system and a people of knowledge and skill that is rapidly disappearing. His words ring hollow when matched with our barbaric bombing and Vietnam style terrorist cleansing sweeping actions across the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan and our past despicable aggression in Iraq. And his influence is minor relative to the other Presidents applauded.
We must talk less, listen more and turn our economy from decline and financial embrace to government inspired jobs towards national stratiegies and goals. And we must emulate our trade partners and find ways of restricting trade arrangements that destroy our competence and will.
Finally, we must peacefully, through taxation and regulation, return economic opportunity back to the middle class and away from an emerging plutocracy and dynastic governance. The power of monopolistic weath and its corrupting influence on politics must be broken up or our democracy shall be broken up. There is not another option..
Both Democrats and Republicans must join together in this direction to save our Union.